Bin Lorry crashes in Glasgow

[Countdown]

poo at Paul's said:

I think to answer that, you need more inside knowledge of the case and procedures than any of us have. However, do you think that all procedures employed by the Employer as of today are the same as they were then?

I've no idea. If i was to take a guess I'd say the Employers reviewed their systems to see what they could change to improve matters. Potentially nothing has changed unless they're now going to insist on mandatory medicals

poo at Paul's said:

And do you think that all procedures in place then were followed 100% in all cases?

I doubt very much that anything was omitted which could have prevented this. Certainly nothing that I've read suggests that an error or omission by the Employer was contributory to what happened.

poo at Paul's said:

Since no prosecutions were brought we will never know who was or wasn't negligent,

To me it's obvious who was negligent. It was the driver. Nothing the Employer could put in place (even a daily EASA Class 1 Medical) is guaranteed to stop things like this happening. There seems to be some need on your part to hold the Employer to blame for some reason. I'm not sure why.

[poo at Paul's]

Ultimately, if they had not employed this guy, 6 people would be alive today that aren't.

I'd like to think that they have implemented some form of medical assessment or appraisal, maybe even taking or requesting medical references and annual medicals for drivers of such vehicles. This is not intrusive or an infringement of someone's liberties, it is standard in many industries where lives of others are at stake, including my own.

If not, IMO these people have died very much in vain and the Harry Calrkes of the world will continue to risk the lives of others whilst earning a living, rather than being off the road and forced to make a living within the limitations of their abilities.

As I say, I am not trying to absolve Clarke of his responsibilities.

[Vipers]

poo at Paul's said:

williamp said:

Vipers said:

poo at Paul's said:

Gavia said:

I don't know if it's fair or not. I don't whether an employer should check every detail of their staff to the nth degree. I don't know what the process is to dismiss a staff memeber (at whatever level) in a highly unionised council environment.

I don't know enough detail of the case to have a view on whether others should have been sacked.

Every employer has a duty of care toward it's employees and the public.

And I believe employees have a duty of care as well.

yes this. I am certain there will be a part in the contract or staff handbook which states somehting about medical conditions which may affect the ability to do the job. These should be declared then.

None of which absolves the employer of their duty of care. I am not sure of your point. It seems like you are saying it was all the drivers responsibility, I'd not agree, but even if you are right, why did he not get prosecuted..!? Answer may never be truly know, but I suspect the fact he was allowed to get away with it for so long after the toher incident, meant there was a lack of desire to pursue him from within the council etc. And without that co-operation, how far would the case get?

Not the first time such a thing has happened, I think we all know that.

For what it's worth I have found the duty of care imposed on all employees, the HSAW act 1974 says :-
General duties of employees at work.

It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work; and

(b)as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with.

[BlackLabel]

Families bereaved by the bin lorry crash in Glasgow that killed six people have been denied the right to launch a private prosecution against the driver.

[funkyrobot]

I don't really understand any of this. It's as if he has some sort of protection.

[anonymous-user]

it is a shame really and I hope they appeal this, I guess lying to a company is not enforceable.

[dudleybloke]

The law is an ass.

[anonymous-user]

All this talk if increasing penalties for dangerous driving and this dirt gets off free. So is the way out of a potential DD charges to lie and say you had a blackout?

[AndrewEH1]

dudleybloke said:

The law is an ass.

The law is fine, just the people meant to uphold the law in the case haven't.

[anonymous-user]

AndrewEH1 said:

dudleybloke said:

The law is an ass.

The law is fine, just the people meant to uphold the law in the case haven't.

......again.

[hornetrider]

funkyrobot said:

I don't really understand any of this. It's as if he has some sort of protection.

Me either.

[anonymous-user]

Why is it so hard to accept the offence isn't made out and it's simply a horrible incident that isn't captured under criminal law?

Much more rational than any other speculative rubbish.

[williamp]

bad timing to annoucne this so close to christmas too. Could it have bene announced a few weeks/monthe]s earlier??

[dudleybloke]

Many people died because of his lies.... Yet the law will go to almost any measure to punish someone who lies about minor traffic offences where nobody got hurt or killed.
Maybe he knows a secret handshake or is connected to Saville, but it defies any logic that he will not be punished.

[Davel]

In this case, the law has let these poor folk down badly.

[superlightr]

La Liga said:

Why is it so hard to accept the offence isn't made out and it's simply a horrible incident that isn't captured under criminal law?

Much more rational than any other speculative rubbish.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the reason the families wanted to bring a private prosecution in the civil courts is it not? The CPS would not run with it hence why the families wanted a private prosecution. To deny them this appears very unfair.

Edited by superlightr on Friday 9th December 13:46

Edited by superlightr on Friday 9th December 13:47

[Rude-boy]

Davel said:

In this case, the law has let these poor folk down badly.

Almost this.

They were far too hasty to announce that there would be no prosecutions on this. No doubt because they thought that it would be some council officer who would get the bullet.

As a result the PF's application of the law has meant that the victims families have been failed.

I am somewhat surprised that the driver has not had their breathing rights revoked by a disgruntled relative or similar.

[superlightr]

Rude-boy said:

Almost this.

They were far too hasty to announce that there would be no prosecutions on this. No doubt because they thought that it would be some council officer who would get the bullet.

As a result the PF's application of the law has meant that the victims families have been failed.

I am somewhat surprised that the driver has not had their breathing rights revoked by a disgruntled relative or similar.

yes it would be very hard not to want to take 'justice' into ones hands if a relative when 'justice' is not seen to been done.

[Cliftonite]

Is it not possible to obtain written details of how and why this decision was made? Justice has to be seen to be done!

Was this err, person, not given assurances by the authorities at the very outset that he would not face prosecution? Those authorities would surely not like the spotlight turned on the circumstances of that decision, as would probably happen, should a prosecution proceed?

[22]

It is a joke in this case. There was no proper consideration of the facts before they announced they would protect the poor man from action after what was apparently an awful accident.

Turns out it was an awful man, but they weren't willing to backtrack as I guess this would undermine their process, no matter how rushed and incorrect it was.